While there are many things about George W. Bush that I disagree with, they all relate to his FAILURE to BE a CONSERVATIVE!!

From Immigration to Harriet Meiers to Dubai Ports to the bailout and profligate spending, Bush has abandoned Conservative principles on numerous occasions, and THIS is responsible for his approval ratings falling below 38%.There are not more liberal thinkers out there; there are large numbers of conservatives who were disenchanted with Bush's swerves to the left that brought his numbers down.

With that said, George W. Bush has accomplished a couple of positive things.The tax cuts DID what they always do... They stimulated the economy and increased revenues.Bush inherited a recession, and the events of 9/11 could have tanked the economy - and the tax cuts averted that.

Unfortunately he was not so successful averting the economic effects of the sub-prime housing market since the red flag of Fannie and Freddie was waved in 2004 by REPUBLICANS and efforts to get a handle on the problem were resisted by Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etc.These DEMOCRATS who CAUSED the problem are the same ones who claim to be in charge of FIXING it! The problem began with the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter, and was magnified under Clinton as there was more pressure brought to bear to make more loans to less qualified people!But BUSH is catching the blame again!

Bush has had his share of faults and foibles.No doubt.But the Bush Derangement Syndrome of the left is unfounded.Bush was the object of hate from the left ever since the 2000 election, and they never got over it.He was blamed for everything that ever went wrong in this country for 8 years.

Look at Katrina!The problem in New Orleans was the result of Nagin's failure to implement his own disaster plan, and the RESISTANCE by Gov Blanco to PERMIT feds INTO the state to help (ever hear of Posse Commitatus?)It was only after Bush threatened her with implementation of the INSURRECTION ACT to allow federal troops to cross into LA did she relent and PERMIT Federal assistance!

After the storm passed, FEMA took a lot of heat... But remember that FEMA was not set up as a First-Responder agency!The first responders in New Orleans were PARTICIPATING in the looting!!

FEMA is the "Federal Emergency Management Agency".They are supposed to come into a disaster area AFTER the fact, and help by organizing and financing the cleanup.They are a coordinating agency set up to work with local officials.The breakdown in New Orleans was the local officials.Funding for levy upgrades etc had been misappropriated by New Orleans politicians for generations!Nagin, Blanco, Landreau were the problem - but Bush caught the heat.

But what about Iraq?

Let's see.In 1991 we established a CEASE-FIRE - with provisions that Iraq failed to keep.After 17 UN resolutions against Iraq which they also failed to keep, resumption of hostilities was justified on that very basis alone.

There has been much made of the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue, but the entire world had the same intelligence and Saddam himself DESIRED to foster the notion that he possessed them as it made his neighbors fearful to mess with him.He never believed we would invade because he had the French and Russians and a lot of Germans in his pocket due to corruption in the Oil for Food program.He thought they could restrain the US.

Regime change in Iraq had long been the policy of the US - including the administration of liberal hero, Bill Clinton.

What is rarely discussed in the Iraq issue is the strategic importance of Iraq - and we're not talking about a war for oil.Iraq is a buffer between Iran and more moderate states.Iraq borders Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria.A functioning secular democracy in that region would stabilize the middle east.A laudable goal.Afghanistan, Pakistan and other potential hotspots are a short hop from Iraq, and again, a de-radicalized Iraq would stabilize the region.

The initial handling of the post-combat insurgency was poorly administered.Granted.But there are errors in ANY military action.Over 1000 men were lost in a single failed training exercise in WWII!!Considering the loss of over 50,000 soldiers, mostly draftees, in Vietnam - Iraq has been a very low casualty action and every one a volunteer.Not that the loss of any soldier can be minimized or is any less a tragedy, however the casualties in the pursuit of a mission which ultimately IS in the best interests of the United States cannot be called a waste.

Since the Surge and the installation of Petraeus as commander, our tactics changed and the general Iraqi populace became more secure, and came to trust our forces.Their popular support turned toward us and away from the radicals.They began providing more actionable intelligence.Their police and security forces began to become trained and efficient forces capable to assuming more responsibility for their own security.Free elections were held.The fledgeling Iraqi government is becoming more self sufficient.A Jeffersonian Democracy? No, but a constitutional republic has been established and is functioning.

While a couple years ago, Harry Reid was declaring the war LOST and demanding a CUT AND RUN... Bush held on, adjusted tactics, and has overseen a subsequent success to the point the a realistic withdrawal of troops can be contemplated due to the successful completion of the mission!

Unfortunately, Americans have become impatient, spoiled children - expecting instant gratification with little effort or cost, and they are shortsighted accepting short term satisfaction over long term gains.Wars are not supposed to have casualties, setbacks or last more than 100 hours!If there is resistance and goals cannot be accomplished within a year, the cause is lost and not worth pursuing!

Thankfully, George W Bush did not concede to these thoughts.And now we stand on the verge of true victory in Iraq.

Bush lied?BULL!He REPORTED the same intelligence the rest of the world believed.He was willing to act on it in defense of our nation's interests.

Bush was waging a war for oil?Bull! If that was so we'd be CONFISCATING it now!We're not!

Bush was just in it for his cronies?(ie Halliburton)?BULL!The Dubai Ports deal came about because there are only a couple entities CAPABLE of handling the ports concession.Halliburton was one of them.Bush was trying NOT to give it to them!!

History will sort it all out.Bush will be judged neither as a success nor a failure.He did good.He made mistakes.He had failings.But I can still name a number of stronger contenders for "worst President ever" than Bush.Carter, Hoover, Andrew Johnson, and Chester Arthur, come to mind right off the top of my head.Carter facilitated the radical Islamic resurgence.He presided over double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and double digit unemployment.And Liberals say Bush is worse?

And so, the Bush era ends in a few weeks.Barack Obama ascends to the Presidency swept in on a wave of discontent with the current administration and ethnic identity pride.Good luck to him.He'll need it.Meantime, Hail and Farewell to the Chief, George W. Bush.For all his successes and failures; for all his controversies and stubbornness; he was our 43rd President.

Despite the failure of several lawsuits to get a hearing of the facts in the courts, there remain questions about Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States under Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution. Only a "Natural Born" Citizen may serve in that office.

On his website Obama finally acknowledged that at one time he held dual citizenship between the US and Kenya. This in and of itself could be argued to be a disqualifier; as the point of the "natural born" clause in the Constitution was to avoid divided allegiances. But if Obama was not born in the United States, he is indisputably ineligible to inherit "Natural Born" US Citizenship from his mother. His father was not a US Citizen, and his mother had not fulfilled the requirement to have lived 5 years in the US past the age of 14. She was only 18 at the time of Obama's birth. Therefore if he was born in Kenya, he is NOT a "Natural Born" US Citizen and is ineligible to serve.

Obama put forth only a "Certification of live birth" as evidence of eligibility; which is NOT A Birth Certificate!

After months and months of unrequited requests, the Obama campaign did finally present a document which they claimed validated your eligibility (per the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section I) as a "Natural born citizen" to have Obama's name on the ballot in contention for the office of the President of the United States of America.

Some have claimed the document is a forgery; however it is unlikely that the document is not a genuinely issued form from the State of HI…

However, what the Obama campaign supplied was not, in fact, a "birth certificate". What they supplied was actually a "Certification of Live Birth." There is a major difference between a "birth certificate" and a "Certification of Live Birth."

Aside from the level of detail differentiating the documents (hospital of record, doctor, height, weight, etc) - in the state of Hawaii, one authenticates natural born citizenship, and the other doesn't.This part is important; - and it has nothing to do with tin foil hats.

According to the State of Hawaii's Department of Health, "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country." (For citation purposes, please feel free to visit their site: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html ).

The "Certificate of Live Birth" as provided by Mr. Obama, is in fact, a derivative of the "Amended certificates of birth" they site. Why is that important? Because of that second clause in the above citation. While you may show citizenship via such a document, you do not necessarily prove "natural born" citizenship. "Natural born citizenship" is what is required to be eligible to be considered for the Presidency, per the United States Constitution.

The form that you posted wouldn't even be acceptable to make an application in Hawaii's Home Lands Program! The STATE OF HAWAII that ISSUED the form won't accept it as proof of "natural born" Hawaiian eligibility for the program!

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

THIS is a "Vault Copy" HI Birth Certificate:

And this is the Certification of Live Birth posted on Obama's website:

Notice any differences?

Hospital of birth? Residence address of mother? Birthplace of parents? SIGNATURE OF ATTENDANT AT BIRTH?

What Obama posted IS NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

There is a further complication, however. EVEN IF Obama was born in Hawaii, his subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship represents a bigger fly in his ointment.

Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship; and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia. Thus, whether Obama held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, and whether he was born in the US or Kenya; all is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he would have held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian! Obama's US Citizenship would be forfeit!

Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would have had to be thru NATURALIZATION; and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II. (Could this be why he opted to use the politically risky name Barack Hussein Obama instead of the more innocuous "Barry Soetoro"? Perhaps Barry Soetoro is STILL an Indonesian citizen? Perhaps there are naturalization papers in the name of Barry Soetoro? I'm just asking...)

If there is any doubt in your mind as to the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve in the office of President of the United States under Title II, then you have a constitutional duty to withhold your electoral vote.